Not the sort of sort of hockey stick they wanted

Of course, the 10:10 Splattergate video is only one in a series of horrible PR blunders made by the Greens. Read on for commentary and to see yet another shocking example of imagery about killing children in the name of climate change.

Businesses have begun to distance themselves from the carbon-cutting campaign 10:10 over a promotional film the organisation premiered last week that depicts schoolchildren, office workers and celebrities being blown up for not taking action on climate change. Sony UK and Kyocera Mita, two corporate partners of the 10:10 campaign, both condemned the short film ‘No Pressure’, directed by Richard Curtis, today, for being “tasteless” and “shocking”. – GreenWise Business, 5 October 2010

If the goal [of the film] had been to convince people that environmental campaigners have lost their minds and to provide red meat (literally) to shock radio hosts and pundits fighting curbs on greenhouse gases, it worked like a charm. Of course the goal might have been buzz more than efficacy. Too often these days, that’s the online norm. They succeeded on that front. I, among many others, am forced to write about it. Congratulations. –Andrew C Revkin, The New York Times, 4 October 2010

As often as 10:10 tried to pull the film off YouTube, their critics re-posted it. This, at least, proves what a cataclysmic misjudgement Curtis had made. When you try to satirise the critics of your campaign, and it turns out that those very critics embrace your film as demonstrating exactly what they find unbearable about the climate-obsessed eco-lobby, then you know that you have kicked the ball into your own net. Unfortunately, just as a star footballer who scores a spectacular own goal must now endure his foolishness being viewed endlessly on the internet, so Richard Curtis will have this hanging round his neck, like a stinking fish, for as long as he is successful enough to be worth mocking. –Dominic Lawson, The Independent, 5 October 2010

People who believe that humanity is heading towards destruction as a consequence of its misdeeds often take quiet pleasure in imagining the bloodshed to come. That, at least, is my explanation for Richard Curtis’s decision to make a short film for the 10:10 pressure group of climate change fanatics in which he depicted – with huge relish – children being blown to pieces. It’s important to grasp the quasi-religious nature of the 10:10 pressure group. Irrespective of where you stand on AGW, it’s clear that its pernickety commandments, most of them involving energy-saving lightbulbs, won’t make any difference to the fate of the planet. But they do have a sacred significance, as do the deaths in the Curtis snuff movie. There’s nothing like the prospect of the ritual slaughter of children to excite prophecy believers, in my experience. –Damian Thompson, The Daily Telegraph, 4 October 2010

The young don’t need religion, as the environment gives them all the certainty they need. Greenery, as a secular religion, has come to dominate not just the curriculum, but the imagination. It’s Blue Peter‘s recycled bottle tops on a grand scale: lessons on the dangers of global warming, projects on endangered species, litter-picking exercises. As any parent will testify, pester power is as often employed these days to guilt Dad into separating out the recyclables as to beg for the latest Transformer. Colleagues who have suffered their children’s eco-scorn assure me that no member of the Inquisition was ever so ruthless, ever so certain of his faith, as their tiny Torquemadas. –Robert Colvile, The Times, 6 October 2010

===========================================

Meanwhile, the last remaining sponsor of the 10:10 Splattergate video, the cell phone provider “O2” seems to be softening a bit.

A bunch of people have been sending me this, and since it is getting wide play elsewhere, I suppose I’ll have to bring it up here. Last year, the Cannes film festival embraced this mentally repulsive child exploiting ugliness:

89 thoughts on “Not the sort of sort of hockey stick they wanted”

What is it about the fall lately? 2009 gave us Climategate; 2010 gives us Splattergate. It used to be in Spring (Earth Day in April, for instance) when the Eco-crowd went loonier than (for them) normal.

So parents cave into the eco-pressure from their kids that they know is coming from the school system? Talk about surrendering to the worlds influences when raising your kids, wow. I guess I really did grow up in a “red-state” extended-family because all the adults I knew as a kid were constantly casting doubt in my mind and making me re-examine what my teachers taught me.

It is time to leave this alone. The film speaks for itself and needs no more editorialising.
Perhaps we could all move on to more important things.
I, for one, am starting to feel uneasy about the further massive outpourings.

Hmmm – sat chatting with my 15 year old daughter, she tells me they have been shown this video in class today.
She seems totally unfazed by it and says the teacher just showed it as a laugh. I can’t get the context in which it was shown out of her. Physics class, talking about renewable energy/climate change and teacher says “hey kids do you want to watch a video”.
Complain or not – that is the question – was the guy just having a laugh or preaching – I don’t know.

Possibly the run-up to global negotiations spurs activists into thinking that now is the time for a big passionate demonstration of their faith — and cheeses everyone else off accordingly.

I don’t think we have yet established the motivation behind the Climategate leaks, but my guess is that it was some poor programmer being urged by passionate people to work long hours on something that he or she knew privately was complete crap. Nothing saps morale like catering to other people’s delusions.

@Gary
Bad things happen in October, financial crashes seem to be a particular favourite, and British history has a number of battles, often lost by misjudgement, at this time of year (Hastings; Agincourt; Trafalgar) . Maybe it’s something to do with some sort of fundamental human cycle and its relationship to the weather (or do I mean climate? – and can I have a grant?)

I recently had my nephew to stay. He did question me on what I thought about Global Warming. I ran my finger along one of my bookshelves and handed him what I thought was an appropriate introductory volume: “Global Warming and Other Bollocks”, by Stanley Feldman.

The soccer club Tottenham Hotspur FC (THFC) have yet to come out against it, I received e-mail from them that said:
“We took part in the film in good faith. We appreciate that this film may offend some and that others will see it as a typical Richard Curtis tongue-in-cheek approach to raising awareness. ”

“Spurs Lodge was turned into a mini film set on Thursday with a crew from 10:10 at the training ground to film the lads for an ‘explosive’ feature.
…
Without revealing too much prior to the film being released, the production was an explosive affair with a series of small explosions managed by a expert special effects team.”

I found that my child’s Infant School was signed up to the 10:10 campaign, when I looked at the original 1st October statement.

It signed off with:

Oh Well, we live and learn… Onwards and upwards..

(how to keep digging that hole!)

I showed the Headteacher the Guardian article, and the video…
She looked unhappy after about the 1st minute of what was happening in the classroom.

‘teachers, never do that ‘single people out, etc’

It took, EXACTLY 1 minute 12 secoonds, (ie the TEACHER presses the RED BUTTON and kills the CHILDREN for her to ring up 10:10, withdraw the school from 10:10 and say to them that the school would have no further involvement…
(to their credit… Sony seems to have come to the conclusion, pretty quickly as well)

The point is, schools get to see the safe , appropriate material…
The children then go home to look at the safe people that came into their schools website (No Pressure front page 10:10 website) and what do they find……

(my 6 year old is in the eco-team, they did a little report on polar bears, research at home on the internet..)

Yet the ‘extreme’ CAGW activists, and even the Guardain are still trying to defend it..
Many thousands of children were part of the 10:10 Campaign, many have been doubly betrayed, by the video, and by 10:10’s censorship.

It was a Joke, don’t you have a sense of humour….!

Which is of course the response of bullies, when caught out/ or being challenged.

Those 10:10 campaigning children have NOW LEARNT an IMPORTANT LESSON, that there voices can be deleted to, by the people they supported, just for critcising..

There WERE Lots of abusive comments, I am not that suprised.

10:10 they could have just ‘moderated’ them RealClimate/Guardian style, why not leave it open for the genuine supporters who were upset…

Of course 10:10 – Franny, et al, did not like the embarrasment, of their own suporters criticising the leaders…

That is the mindset, delete/ignore/supress/label, wish away anyother thoughts or people… Some of the 3000 plus missing now from the 10 10 apology page…

Some (now deleted) comments below..

1.Dan Woodfine
Dear 10:10

I’m a teenager who has spent the last year trying to convince my parents to be more aware of the environment, to put more effort into recycling, to save energy etc. And what’s more – it was working.

They’ve now seen your video and have been interrogating me about who I’m associating with, warning me about “eco-terrorists” and other such nonsense.

In short, with this video, you’ve completely undone everything I’ve tried to do to help my parents. You’ve made them suspicious of me, and you’ve made them downright angry.

Thanks for nothing, you bunch of idiots.

1.Carol Ann Cattell
Is that the best you can do, 10:10 leaders? Still no apology even to your supporters. Mention jokingly a “lively round on cake”, which was about 5 out of 3000 comments? Like a finishing school dormitory girls’ giggle? And your main statement still says “most” thought it funny but “some” didn’t – but the truth is, as you know, the opposite – that globally, thousands found it crass and unfunny and authoritarian and just, well, crap in promoting your cause.

You. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

And some – a handful of goodhearted souls – have loyally supported you, but not terribly well, all the time you were silent. All a bit of a laugh, was it? Going back to Mummy and Daddy and their contacts for a bit more money, now, are we?

God, you make me angry. And most of us were on your side, if you hadn’t been so blinkered. No, the eco stuff is still there and serious and needs serious consideration, proper scientific facts, and effective action. But I hope to god you lot aren’t anywhere near it. You’re toxic. You can’t even say sorry properly. You’ve no idea, have you? We’re just plebs to be sniggered at, fodder for your little wanky games. For the earth’s sake, just grow up, will you?

Yeah, I’m a smidgen cross.

1.Managing Director
Our corporate accountants alerted me this evening to the existance (sic) of this video and to remind me that we had made a financial contribution to the 10:10 campaign. Having viewed it, I find it personally repulsive in the extreme. You have had the last donation you will ever get from our business or any business with which I have any influence. What could you have been thinking?

1.Dear all at 10:10
I have supported your campaign to date, am pro-green, pro-cutting carbon emissions, and generally very environmentally conscious. I also grew up in a country where people were blown up and killed by terrorists on a daily basis. I know people who died in this way, and from this video, I imagine from this video that no one at your office, or on your creative team, has experienced this.

The mini-movie campaign indicates a total lack of sensitivity. Further, whatever the intended message might have been, it does implicitly suggest that those who disagree with you should be blown up. If this had been aimed at people who are of a different race, religion, sexuality, etc, it would have been evidently grossly unacceptable.

Sadly, the mini-movie makes me ashamed to have lent my support, and put my name to 10:10. I imagine your corporate sponsors may feel similarly. I am reluctant to continue to be associated with an organisation which can advertise its cause in this way, even if I support the underlying green cause.

This is compounded by what is somewhat obviously a non-apology. It is not a sense of humour failure (as you seem to imply) for people who may actually have seen children, friends, etc blown up, not to consider your mini-movie particularly funny.

The environmental cause will now to have to deal with the damage that you’ve managed to do it. Your supporters deserve a decent apology for the damage you have done to the general reputation of the green movement.

We will just have to continue onwards and upwards without you.

—————-

personal experince has taught me , if you see anything embarrasing, controversial, in ‘certain websites comments section… Better save it, archive it, as who knows how long it will stay there…

If it is deleted, it never happened… that is the mondset…

And of course Franny Armstrong (10:10 founder)
quoted from the LAUNCH Guardian aricle (they were excited)

“Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet? Clearly we don’t really think they should be blown up, that’s just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?”

This is made out to be a joke, by the Guardain, I say it does reveal the ‘mindset’….

Oh – dear – I was thinking of making a tongue-in-cheek comment about them 10:10’s ranking catching up to WUWT, but they passed you! (Not by much.) Hmm, I don’t see an easy way to make a URL for showing both “reach” lines.

“How can you possibly endorse the 10:10 ad campaign as per RT Jones appalling comment? Of course you have a self interest here but as a history teacher for 37 years the chilling association with mass murder by zealots is all too obvious. Oh, and by the way I am calling you on the bullshit that CO2 is even remotely dangerous to mankind. And yes, I taught science as well.”

“Jack Savage says:
October 6, 2010 at 1:04 pm
It is time to leave this alone.”

NO, it is not. The MSM is not covering it and hopes, like Jack, that it goes away. It is absolutely disgusting, amoral and should be held up to all as an example of the depravity of the global warmist religion. We must continue to disseminate it and have a wider audience view the examples of the use of the death, or impending death, of children to further their twisted campaign.

This includes a recycling of some of Pachauri’s more egregious claims (for good measure!) and ends with an oh so inspiring “we have the power to save the world” … and watch for one scene towards the end which almost prefigures (and might even have “inspired”) Franny & co’s button box.

And now this? One can hardly wait to see what they’ll conjure up for Cancun.

@Gary
Bad things happen in October, financial crashes seem to be a particular favourite, and British history has a number of battles, often lost by misjudgement, at this time of year (Hastings; Agincourt; Trafalgar) . Maybe it’s something to do with some sort of fundamental human cycle and its relationship to the weather (or do I mean climate? – and can I have a grant?)

The battles of Agincourt and Trafalgar are two of the biggest victories against the French in British history. Granted, the October jinx was in operation in 1066 when we suffered a pasting at Hastings but two out of three isn’t bad.

What is most interesting about the film, is what it tells you about its creators.

The school children as well as the people in the hall were shocked by the explosion of the ‘non believers’. This demonstrates that the leadership elite, and not the masses, are the ones who are making things happen. They are similar to the Bolsheviks, Pol Pot and other notables.

UK Sceptic says:
October 6, 2010 at 3:37 pm
‘The battles of Agincourt and Trafalgar are two of the biggest victories against the French in British history.’

I didn’t in any way mean to imply these battles were losses for the English ( I am fully aware we won!), just that serious misjudgements were made by the losers, which also IMO was the case for Hastings – Harold should have bided his time.

Here in England, up until a couple of years ago, my daughters at the same school were inundated with CAGW propaganda. I explained to them that, as with every assertion, there was another side. I introduced them to various blogs, WUWT being the first, where they gained exposure to differing opinions to the ones they were being force-fed. I let them proceed at their own pace and I let them draw their own conclusions.
They became, of their own accord, ‘sceptics’.
I was approached by their headmaster at a PTA meeting and I was TOLD not to ‘corrupt’ my children by telling them that CAGW was so much garbage; my daughters were considered to be ‘disruptive elements’ in the classroom (both in different classes).
My reaction startled the headmaster somewhat!
Both of my girls are now University students and are well-able to differentiate between facts and propaganda. And they are educating others.

Thankfully, nearly all those responding to Green Chip Stocks idiot are reasonable and reasonably informed; but one is not, and I do fear how far this represents the still very young folk being exposed to science teaching as it currently stands. Here it is:

CO2 IS pollution when there is more than our world can process. Car exhaust is CO which can actually combine with additional O and create CO2. Sir “CO2+H20”, did you know that you could actually die from soaking in water too long? You can literally waterlog your body to the point of drowning in your very skin because of TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING. CO2 is no different…if there is the right balance then all is right with the world but if there is too much…well, have you ever been locked in a frdge as a kid? Did you know anyone that was? You know all those kids who die each year from being stuck in the trunk of the car? What is it that you think killed them? Lack of oxygen…yes…but in what form? CO2, that right ladies and germs…too much CO2 not enough we breath out CO2? Now, picture our atmosphere and our globe like a BIG TRUNK, or Plastic bubble, or refridgerator, whatever kindergarten level picture necessary to paint this out for you—sorry i left my fingerpaints at home, but stay with me here—if we keep pumping MORE CO2 out than the planet is capable of “expelling” through photosynthesis in plants, absorption by the ocean, etc…then it starts to get awfully stuffy in the “trunk” and eventually you run out of oxygen altogether and you fall asleep and you die…just because CPR involves breathing CO2 into someone else doesn’ mean you can breath it on a regular basis…eventually you can’t process it anymore. You suffer brain damage and delusions, which could be amusing, but mostly NOT!!! If someone is SO self absorbed that they don’t feel they should protect that which gives them life and food and breathable air, then they deserve what they get, but for the rest of us that do care and will likely have to make your effort for you—just remember who you owe your life to.

Does anyone have some reasonable overview on (a) the syllabus (b) the watermelon-factor (green-outside, red-inside) of science teachers at present, in the countries which WUWT represents? Because I strongly suspect indoctrination, though I would wish otherwise. But need evidence, not just anecdotal but statistically significant, or likely to be such.

‘The battles of Agincourt and Trafalgar are two of the biggest victories against the French in British history.’

Since when do people celbrate victories against the french. Even Mexico kicked french butt in Puebla on cinco de mayo, and they don’t celebrate it. Cinco de mayo is purely an american holiday created by corona.

O2’s now back up (00.56 BST) but doesn’t appear to have any references to 10:10. The search function delivers nothing, whilst their eco sections also seem to make no reference to 10:10.http://www.o2.co.uk/thinkbig/planet
I wonder what this means? The 10:10 website still has them listed, so who knows. Perhaps 10:10 should be checking their emails ..

I’m trying to figure out how to respond when I see some say they are calling “b******t” on people being offended. How far out of touch are they? What kind of person cannot see how the film is offensive to most people and even frightening to some??

@Robert Wykoff:
‘Since when do people celbrate victories against the french.’

Um, you might check out some European history then. The English have fought the French, on and off, bitterly and bloodily, for a bit under 800 of the last 1000 years. The Mexican experience, to be fair, isn’t quite the same, either in degree or duration. Even our (now obscene) gesture of disdain and abuse, the V sign, is alleged to have come from the bowmen of the 100 Years War and was aimed at the French – and frequently still is when drunk English football supporters rampage around Europe (no change there then). And Napoleon was no walkover.

For those of you with kids coming home from school all hyped up on recycling, global warming, and so on, with a little bit of research and a short field trip you can poke a gigantic hole in the propoganda without even starting an argument. I did it with all three of my kids and it works like a charm.

The local land waste facility, or land fill, or dump, or nuisance ground, or what ever they call it in your local is the eventual home of all those recyclables for which there is no local capacity to recycle. They work on a schedule and its not too hard to find out the schedule. When the kids started chirping propoganda from school, I invited each of them for a ride to the local dump. There was need for promises of ice cream afterward in some cases, but each was pursuaded to come along.

When the trucks full of recycling start pulling up and dumping everything from glass bottles to newspapers into the dump with all the other garbage, just point at it, laugh, and say “there’s your recycling”.

That prompts an almost immediate WTF? which is a teaching moment of course.

Nibor25 says: “…chatting with my 15 year old daughter, she tells me they have been shown this video in class today. She seems totally unfazed by it and says the teacher just showed it as a laugh…says “hey kids do you want to watch a video”.
Complain or not – that is the question – was the guy just having a laugh or preaching – I don’t know.”

The ultimate objective may have been desensitization of children (and adults) to violence ultimately being used against skeptics. Based on Nibor’s comment, it would appear to have been successful, though at a cost. Every day of counterdemonstration increases their cost. Keep writing and emailing the corporate sponsors and your local newspapers. The life you save may be your own.

I agree with you both and hope Anthony pursues the New Zealand NIWA temperature record story in your link. Wow! Imaging making the following argument:

‘NIWA has formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence”.’

If that ain’t an admission that what was being done was more politics than science, I don’t know what would be. I hope there are repercussions!

Putting ideas like the 10:10 video out there isn’t simply offensive, it’s liable to trigger certain people over the edge.
We already have enough on the plate as far as campus shooters and going-postal types.
Offended isn’t the worst thing that can happen, and that isn’t bs.

I started them at about 5:05, with Prof. Daniel Benjamin’s introduction to the costs of recycling in relation to the supposed benefits, immediately followed at 5:37 by the setup for the part that hooks them: two people are filmed on hidden camera doing a “test” of 8-bin recycling, including “lightly soiled toilet paper–tested in Japan with great results!” They agree to try, for the planet’s sake.

The thing that had the kids rolling was these poor people at 14:00 doing the actual “test”.

Outfitted in rubber aprons and gloves, piles of garbage at their feet, they were speed-sorting all kinds of ordure into the eight different bins, and being blasted with an airhorn every time they made a mistake: “No! That’s WET food refuse! BRAAAAAAP!”

It is a full 1/2 hour episode of the program, but it got my kids thinking, and looking beyond “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” mantras.

Agree with the other comments on recycling, it works best if you recycle ‘at source’; i.e. find other uses for stuff that you would otherwise throw in the bin.

Something I find hard to get my head around is how little attempt/reward there is in the market to make things that are more ‘modular’ in nature to encourage ‘reuse’ rather than ‘recycling’. Also I’m constantly amazed at the sheer amount of packaging used on some products. Governments could certainly do more in this space to provide appropriate incentives.

What sort of idiots would put their logo on something like this? The ones at the bottom apparently.
===
Thanks, Anthony! I’ve already blasted the sponsors of the 2009 Expo via email, including the links to the site and the link to the .pdf of the poster of the young lady with the noose around her neck.

Psychologists tell us that humor often tries to cover deeply anti-social emotions with a socially acceptable smiley face, and that the emotion is often unconscious to the humorist. The 10.10 film demonstrates that \”campaign to reduce carbon emissions\” (or whatever they are calling it this week) is a watermelon campaign — green on the outside and red on the inside. Like their explicitly communist brethren these people would not hesitate to make their hostile fantasy real.

I am not offended by the video, but it does prove something that I have long suspected. Green is just a cover for red, and red is based on violence and terror. Give them half a chance and they will be sending us to gulags.

Walter Sobchak says:
October 6, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I am not offended by the video, but it does prove something that I have long suspected. Green is just a cover for red, and red is based on violence and terror. Give them half a chance and they will be sending us to gulags.

0.10 were not trying to be ‘humorous’ they were working toward a very specific aim, the casual murder of kids in a schoolroom by a kindly authority figure, the workers at the work place and even the peoples celebrities are not immune from retribution of the killer state. This was an expertly created tool to target peoples base fears and appeal to people base instincts, the casual public murder portrayed was in fact a highly sophisticated propaganda tool which intended to produce in the audience a precise reaction at the time of watching but more importantly the weeks,months and years after the video has been viewed.

Every second of the video and the required reaction by the viewer was minutely planned by experts in the field of visual propaganda manipulation, the aim to implant a long term effects in the targets sub conscious mind. It was a very sophisticated propaganda meme enabling tool and those who created it made only one error, they produced and showed it too early.
The public have not yet been properly conditioned into accepting this level of manipulative propaganda, the conditioning process is not far enough along for people to readily accept the subliminal messages. The question is of course just why did they make the basic error of showing this video before the overarching mass conditioning and preparation had been completed?
Time is running out for the movement behind the whole CAGW scare as we all know, the timetable had to be moved up and it was this artificial speeding up of the conditioning process that proved to be their undoing. Anyone who has researched the events in Germany from the 30s onwards will realise that this video was only a step on the road to conditioning a population to accept the unacceptable, to think the unthinkable and to believe the unbelievable.
Kill the unbeliever, do not feel empathy for the criminal selfish anti social heretic because if you do then you too could be murdered, the ritual public killing without warning or pity by the authority figure implants fear and uncertainty in even the believer, remember when Stalin stood at the podium and nobody wanted to be seen to be the first to stop clapping?
Fear breeds hate you see, the fear of association with the ‘criminal’ breeds hatred of the ‘criminal’ and it breeds the fanatical desire to be seen as a true believer for fear of being killed. Right upto their deaths the victims of Stalin pleaded their loyalty with cries of long live Stalin.
The planned deliberate contamination and poisoning of inter human relationships is a vital and key element of a budding dictatorship with the primary aims being to divide,separate,dehumanize,criminalize and instill real and lasting fear and hatred and obedience.
When child abusers/bullies/cults/fraudsters target their victims they follow set steps to prepare and condition their victims first, the error on the part of the film makers was to advance too many steps too soon. What we need to see is an expert deconstruction of this video viewed in this context and only then we truly understand this ugly film, its true intent and the real mindset of its instigators.

Here in Australia the state school system teaches the kids all about the evils of CAGW and so on. It’s taught by the social “sciences” teachers who have humanities degrees, etc, and who have no science education at all.

And they have a simple solution to kids who discuss this at home, and give an alternative point of view. The kids fail the subject.

My kids know that they need to give the politically correct answer to get the teacher off their back. Does not mean they believe it. Time to get them reading some WUWT.

RichieP says:
October 6, 2010 at 4:07 pm
“I didn’t in any way mean to imply these battles were losses for the English ( I am fully aware we won!), just that serious misjudgements were made by the losers, which also IMO was the case for Hastings – Harold should have bided his time.”
He couldn’t – the reason so many decisive battles were fought in September / October is because (in the NH) that marks the end of the campaigning season, after which the roads got too bad to move troops about. Similarly, since they were until a couple of centuries ago agrarian societies, they couldn’t usually muster large numbers of troops until the harvest was in. This also meant that autumn was a good time to go campaigning because you could live off your enemy’s food stores and give him a seriously nasty winter to look forward to.
OK, back to the thread:
Personally, I was not the least offended by the film, just thought it rather silly. Maybe having my lads help picking bits of ATO (Ammunition Technical Officer – bomb disposal) off roofs in Belfast helped form a fairly cynical view of my fellow men.

Why is it that becasue you feel the need to believe in something without question, such as the spagehetti monster for example, does it mean that everyone else is obliged to do the same? Why do you label anyone that asks a question about a “settled” conclusion that is being presented, or the methods used to come to that conclusion, as a “denier”, simply because they don’t agree with you?

The 10:10 video IS offensive! It represents the religious zeal that the so called “deniers” complain about from the CAGW crowd. Is this sending the right message to children? You would back peddle very quickly when a 10 year old claims that he killed another because the other was a “climate denier” and he had seen that on the film as the right thing to do.

Why indeed, it is not as if you do not have any personal bias on the subject. The editors note on the site where you have posted your “Nonetheless, I’m calling [/snip] on the whole “Oh, I’m offended” thing.” states that green technologies will be “greatest investment opportunity of the 21st Century.”

Harry the Hacker says:
October 6, 2010 at 11:36 pm
My kids know that they need to give the politically correct answer to get the teacher off their back. Does not mean they believe it. Time to get them reading some WUWT.

I am an Australian living in Italy. My Italian girlfriend plays the mother figure for her 11 year old niece whose mother passed away suddenly about 2 years ago. This above average intelligence young lady who gets perfect grades in her English studies (she is Italian of course) delighted her teacher when she told her that she had a friend (myself) with whom she practised speaking English. In fact, as I also speak Italian, she has asked that when I am around that we speak English instead of Italian.

The other day, I don’t remember exactly how, but the conversation turned to global warming. I asked her if they taught her anything in school about this. She smiled and said yes and spoke confidently and knowledgeably about the perils to polar bears and 10 metres of sea level rise, etc, etc!!!

She is just 11 years old! And they are feeding them with this stuff already! At an age where they just accept anything taught to them!

Try explaining this to an 11 year old. Try explaining balance and bias in an arguement, discussion, or TV/newspaper article. It is quite a delicate task. I explained, not just in relation to AGW but in a general sense also. I explained that she needs to always “ask the question” about anything she hears and always seek the other side of the story. I explianed the concept of critical thinking. I felt a little bad complicating the life of an 11 year old, especially one whose life has had great complications already, but I felt it almost a civic duty in this case! This school education approach (I call it brain washing) has to be stopped, at least until they are a little older and can perhaps “ask the question”.

I also asked her, in order to demonstrate the blind faith religious zealot type attitude, that the next time the subject comes up in class that she tells her teacher that her English speaking friend is quite skeptical on the AGW subject. And then watch the teacher’s reaction! Though I made it very clear to her that she should in no way say that she believd me and that she in fact believes what she has been taught. I do not want her to be ostracised at school as she is truly a promising student.

I will update you when/if she does in fact mention me to the teacher as a skeptic. I will probably be deported! :)

WUWT is great. WUWT is already big. But I wait for day when WUWT has the resources to publish in multilple languages. My girlfriend’s niece does have the ability to understand it if it was written in Italian.

Thanks again Anthony. And thanks for the cryptic smile a few days ago. I don’t know what it was about but it was infectious (the smiley that is). I am still smiling!

Anthony. Can I suggest a children’s version of WUWT? I know you will not have time for this – but I am sure other WUWTers could become involved in preparing verssions of many of the articles that get posted up on the main site for a younger audience. Just a couple of paragraphs for each article, some child-freindly images and graphics, and then a link to the main site’s ‘grown-up’ piece for the kids who want to delve more deeply.

It could have stickers, posters to print out a WUWT club – all the sorts of things that kids love getting involved in. Most of all it would be POSITIVE.

I feel you have made a mistake by snipping my comment and making the remark about vulgarity. This was not my vulgarity. This part that you snipped was a direct quote from the article that Anthony had posted above and he had in fact highlighted this in yellow.

I don’t mind the snip but i feel your comment at the bottom ( [REPLY: Vulgarity is not conducive to a friendly blog environment nor intelligent dialog.. .. bl57~mod] ) is a little unfair as it implies that I have made that statement. It wasn’t my comment, it was a direct quote from the article posted by Anthony and it was in fact highlighted in yellow by him, apparently as the central reason for posting the article in the first place.

Regards,
BSM

[REPLY: My apologies. I was off doing other things and about 80 posts had stacked up in the cue. Doing a quick scan to process them as quickly as possible my eye caught the word. I did not take the time to review source or context. Comment will be removed momentaritly. … bl57~mod]

I am certain that you are aware of the furore surrounding the snuff video released by the “environMENTAL” group, 10:10global.org.
Can you please tell me what you are intending to do regarding your involvement with this group of insane fanatics.

You are the last major company still involved with these people, Sony & Kyocera pulled out very quickly and I am sure you must see the ramifications of your association on your Worldwide business.

Please do not refer me to the “apology” on 10global.org web page, that apology is too little too late, their original apology showed their total detachment from the real World. They are a menace and I do not want to be involved, even peripherally through my having a phone on your network.

Check your records and you will find there are 3 O2 numbers associated with this email address, there are another 6 family members who are also more than a little disconcerted about being connected with these fools.

I also have some influence with a company account involving a further 10 numbers.

Your company response so far has been insulting and to me very disappointing.

Somewhat OT but re comments by :-
RichieP who says: (October 6, 2010 at 5:37 pm) re origins of the two finger gesture:-
” Even our (now obscene) gesture of disdain and abuse, the V sign, is alleged to have come from the bowmen of the 100 Years War and was aimed at the French ” ,
I believe that I am correct in saying that :-
If the French captured the English longbow archers they chopped off the first two fingers of their right hand so that they could no longer fire arrows at them. So the English archers were taunting the French and effectively saying:- ” Hey we’ve still got our fingers and we will continue to fire arrows at you.”

Peter S says: October 7, 2010 at 3:34 am
“Anthony. Can I suggest a children’s version of WUWT?…”

Would this not go against what this site is about really? I don’t think it is trying to tell you what to believe, but to present the evidence as it is and to come to your own opinions. You need to be able to understand the evidence and arguments at a certain level before you could reasonably accept a certain viewpoint.

Yesterday evening, at our Town Council meeting, we were invited (no pressure!) to attend the local opening of a 10:10 campaign. I blew up (!?) and advised my fellow councillors that on no account should we have anything to do with this fascist bunch of disgusting totalitarians who advocate the murder of children who don’t agree with them. I also suggested that if they haven’t yet seen the video, they’re lucky!

Where I began when my children were smaller was on the idea that “nature is fragile”.

The younger grades are guilted into believing that their very presence on the planet is harmful, because of the “fragility” of nature.

Yes, individual discrete pieces of nature ARE fragile–a leaf, an ant, a twig.

But the totality of nature is relentless, rather than “fragile”, and I took opportunities in the natural world to point that out.

The sidewalk heaved by tree roots–the concrete makes you bleed if you fall on it, doesn’t it? But look at how the tree has broken it! Is the tree “fragile”? it drops its leaves each year, and next year they grow more, because look, the tree is bigger, isn’t it?

Easy to squash one bug, and there is a life gone forever. But look at that tree eaten and killed by bugs. That tree is dying, and other parts of nature ate it. The bugs have to live too, don’t they? And look, a new tree is sprouting, right there.

I wonder if the fragility meme takes root because a bug or a blossom is so immediate to a child?

Storms are huge teachers of the fallacy of “fragility”.

I guess that’s why children are told that the fact that they and their house exist, with a car in the driveway, is what causes the storms, and kilss the uprooted tree, and leaves the birds and the bugs “homeless”.

A constant battle, but necessary as part of child rearing–in nearly every subject.

I guess what I’m trying to express, quite badly, is that discrete examples are used to illustrate “facts” about the whole interlocking system that simply aren’t true.

I also imagine that this was part of the reason for the dumbing down of education via the “self esteem” model. How one feels is more imprtant that what one accomplishes, and whether it is objectively true or not.

It explained the humor of Josh’s cartoon for me–“1. Wake Up. 2. Get Dressed. 3. Make Movie.”–in giving me a fantasy glimpse of little Franny as a child getting her esteem stroked instead of her brain and conscience exercised.

“What do you want to be when you grow up, Franny, you clever girl?”

“I’m going to be creative, because I am really good at that, and I will make a million dollars making movies and posters because I am very smart and creative and everyone will do what I say because I’m so smart and I make the best posters in class!”

So little of what is called education these days actually teaches the subject at hand–one of mine had a “team weather project” in middle school that revolved around writing, performing and editing a make-believe weather broadcast. The entire grade rubric was on teamwork and production values, and taught them much more about using video editing software than the subject the mini movie was upposedly teaching.

As far as the two fingered salute goes, I’m afraid the link to either Crecy or Agingcourt (or longbowmen/archers in general) is something of an urban myth. Wikipaedia (I know they miss the a out, but I can’t bring myself to do it) has a fair page on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign although I’m sure I’ve seen the urban myth status confirmed elsewhere (as well as getting a mention on QI).

The batle of Hastings was a [snip] before it even started as Harold Godwinson (king) had already taken his ‘elite’ troops (carls) on a forced march of over a hundred miles from London to Stamford Bridge gathering the fyrd along the way, defeated Harald Hardrada and his viking army (along with Harold’s brother Tostig Godwinson), followed swiftly by a forced march back through London and on to Hastings, so the preparation was poor, the army depleted and the best troops already exhausted and Guilleme the Bastard (William the Conqueror to you and me) took full advantage.
Following their victory the Norman’s camped at Hastings for 2 weeks expecting the English to submit, during which time a new king was crowned, and had the norther English earls not headed home (as the common view was that the battle was nothing to do with them) it is quite conceivable that the English could have repelled the subsequent advance on London, as the Norman army was decimated by dysentery (mitigated by some reinforcements from over the Channel).

@ Lucy Skywalker http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/key-stage-4/science/index.aspx takes you to the UK national curriculum website (I’ve linked to the Key Stage 4 science page, which is GCSE level examined at the age of 16). Having recently moved back out of teaching I don’t have other links to hand but will try to dig some out if you’re interested (www.aqa.org.uk is probably not a bad place to start, although their website was obviously put together by a complete idiot). From experience, throughout secondary level science in the UK the message of global warming/catastrophic climate change is endemic throughout the curriculum and at GCSE level it is far more about the sociopolitical effects than it is about the science – in my years of teaching I didn’t come across a single science teacher who could explain/understood any of the supposed mechanisms involved other than to parrot “it’s the greenhouse effect”, “carbon dioxide allows some IR radiation in, but prevents it leaving the atmosphere again” etc…

I’ve watched the “No Pressure” mini-film three times and I’ll confess, I can’t see the humour at all. The reaction of the other children in the first section was just shock and dismay, as well they might- “Two of my classmates were just blown to smithereens – am I next?”

Woe betide any teacher at my daughter’s school showing this one.

The more insidious pressure placed upon children learning science is that the AGW proposition must be learned as fact for their Science GCSEs. No scepticism allowed.

At least the “You’re killing the children” poster makes sense. That’s not something I would want my name associated with them, but at least I understand the message and why they would do something like. That’s what you expect from shock and awe tactics.

When I first heard about the 10:10 video, I expected it to depict blowing up refineries, fat-cat CEOs, or other “bad guys”. That would also fit with the alarmist mindset. However, I was shocked at the fact that disagreeing with them was considered enough to skip the reason, skip the convincing, and go straight to the naughty-list.

Thank you for your enquiry made to Bill Eyres which has been passed to me to respond.

Along with 100,000 members of the public, leading businesses, schools and universities, local authorities and NHS Trusts, O2 supports the aims of the 10:10 campaign.

We acknowledge our responsibility to the environment and are committed to reducing our carbon emissions both as an organisation and in society as a whole.

10:10 is an independent organisation and we don’t ask for editorial control over the content of its campaigns.

Regards

Dave Massey

Communications Manager

Telefónica O2 UK

To which I have responded.

Dear Mr Massey.

It is becoming increasing obvious that you and you company have no regard for your customers or society as a whole. If you insist on continuing to support these psychopaths, I will have to do my level best to prevent as many people as I can from using your network.

I will also have to suggest to everyone that they do not use Tesco mobile as they are piggy-backed on your network.

I will be contacting Tesco mobile to tell them this and my reasons.

In the meantime, I suggest you take a good look at wattsupwiththat.com and eureferendum.blogspot.com

Regards.

David A. Evans.

Though why I should have any regard for you or your company, God only knows

@MackemX
I will take issue with you on the urban myth status of the V sign and its relationship to the archers of the 100 Years’ War. In Juliet Barker’s excellent ‘Agincourt’ she states that in his pre-battle speech ‘Henry told them that the French would cut off two fingers from the right hand of every English archer, so that they could never draw a longbow again.’ She describes his statement as a ‘pardonable untruth’ since, of course, death was the normal fate of any captured common archer. Whether this is the origin we’ll never know. Oh, but I do agree strongly with your views on how Harold could have won, which is what I meant when I said he should have bided his time.